Environmental Information Regulations

Disclosure Log - Environmental Information Regulations

Prior to April 2026 EIR responses have been incorporated into FOI Responses for the service type.

2026

August

Reference: 4084412

Subject:

Please treat this as a request for recorded information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. I am requesting information relating to annexe accommodation over the last ten calendar years (2015 - 2025 inclusive) Please provide totals per year.:

Application volumes: The number of planning applications received that relates to:
- Annexes
- Ancillary accommodation
- Incidental accommodation
- Dependent relative units
- (or any other equivalent terminology used by your authority)
Decision outcomes: For the same applications, please provide the number:
- Approved
- Refused
- Withdrawn
Appeals: For the same period, please provide:
- How many were appealed
- Appeal outcomes (allowed / dismissed)
- Any recorded inspector reasoning if held in a summarised format)

If providing the full ten years dataset would exceed the appropriate limit, require disproportionate manual searching, or is otherwise not reasonably possible under EIR, please instead provide the same information the most recent five years only.

Response date: 11 August 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4084412

Reference: 4080862

Subject:

Does the Council have an adopted development plan policy requiring planning applications to deliver a minimum of 10% BNG?
Does the Council have an adopted development plan policy requiring planning applications to deliver more than the minimum of 10% BNG and do these apply to all sites? i.e. greenfield or brownfield
If no planning policies are currently adopted requiring a minimum of 10% BNG, or more than the minimum of 10% BNG are local plans published at Regulation 18 or 19 stage which require these levels to be met?
Does the Council provide pre application advice on BNG to developers other than as part of the general pre application advice service?
Has the Council developed its own environmental bank to enable applicants/developers to deliver BNG off site where the need arises, or does it provide a list of recommended sites that have been secured through section agreements or conservation covenants?
Does the Council keep information on the level of BNG which has been provided on and off site since 12 February 2024? If yes can amounts in area and linear units be provided?
Has the council published its Biodiversity Duty Report as required under the Environment Act 2021?

Response date: 6 August 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4080862

Reference: 4056853

Subject:

Please treat this email as a request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This request relates to planning application 26/00099/FUL, concerning 115 Selby Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire NG2 7BB. Please provide copies of recorded information held by Rushcliffe Borough Council from 1 January 2026 to 3 July 2026 relating to the following categories.

Conservation and heritage assessment. Please provide all internal and external communications, notes, draft comments, file notes and records concerning:
- the identification or assessment of 115 Selby Road as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset;
- the application of paragraphs 9.14 and 9.15 of the Local Plan Part 2;
- any discussion of neighbour A, Neighbour B, Neighbour C, Neighbour D, Neighbour E, Neighbour F, group value, or archive material relied upon;
- any draft, amended or final comments prepared by any conservation officer;
- any discussion about uploading, not uploading, amending or reissuing Conservation Officer comments on the public planning file.
Councillor involvement. Please provide all recorded communications between Councillor D Polenta and/or Councillor Dellar and any planning, conservation, design, landscape, legal or senior Council officer concerning:
- application 26/00099/FUL;
- 115 Selby Road;
- the proposed demolition;
- the proposed replacement dwelling;
- the alleged heritage status of the existing dwelling;
- resident objections;
- whether the application should be approved, refused, deferred, amended, referred to committee, or determined under delegated powers.
- Please also provide any direct or indirect communications between Councillors and Conservation Officer concerning the application.
Neighbour, resident, third-party lobbying and non-public representations. Please provide all recorded communications, emails, attachments, meeting notes, call notes, internal messages, file notes or case notes involving, referring to, or arising from any neighbour, resident, objector, councillor, residents’ group, amenity group, campaign group, or any other third party seeking to influence the outcome of application 26/00099/FUL. This should include records concerning:
- any request, lobbying, complaint, objection, meeting, telephone call, informal contact or correspondence seeking refusal, amendment, deferral, committee referral, heritage protection, local listing, tree protection, or any other outcome in relation to the application;
- any communication from or on behalf of nearby properties, including but not limited to 113 Selby Road, where the communication relates to the application;
- any discussion of resident pressure, neighbour objections, local concern, petitions, coordinated objections, or councillor involvement;
- any non-public representations or supporting material submitted by residents or third parties and considered by officers but not uploaded to the public planning file;
- any communications between residents/objectors and councillors, including Councillor D Polenta or Councillor Dellar, where held by the Council;
- any communications between residents/objectors and the Area Team Manager, or any planning, conservation, design, landscape, legal or senior Council officer;
- any internal discussion about the weight to be given to representations, lobbying or objections from neighbours, residents, councillors or third parties.
113 Selby Road and amenity issues. Given that the refusal reasons rely specifically on alleged impacts upon 113 Selby Road, please provide all recorded information concerning:
- the approved extension at 113 Selby Road;
- overshadowing, overbearing impact, privacy, amenity, daylight/sunlight, rear garden impact or rear-facing fenestration at 113 Selby Road;
- any communications from or on behalf of 113 Selby Road;
- any internal discussion about whether the proposed dwelling or annexe would impact 113 Selby Road;
- any diagrams, measurements, assessments or internal notes relied upon when assessing the effect on 113 Selby Road.
Internal decision-making, predetermination and refusal. Please provide all internal communications, case notes, draft reports, review comments and sign-off records concerning:
- the recommendation to refuse the application;
- the drafting or amendment of the reasons for refusal;
- the Area Team Manager’s review of the application;
- when the recommendation to refuse was first reached;
- whether the outcome of the application was discussed or indicated before all consultation responses and applicant rebuttals had been considered;
- whether further design engagement, amendments, negotiation or a design review meeting should be offered to the applicant or agent;
- the decision not to engage in further negotiation before refusal;
- any discussion of whether the application was considered incapable of approval because of the alleged heritage objection;
- the final authorisation of the refusal dated 3 July 2026.
Conflict, impartiality and declarations. Please provide any recorded information concerning:
- any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest relating to Councillor D Polenta, Councillor Dellar, or any officer involved in the application; any declaration or consideration of interest relating to the application;
- any internal discussion of impartiality, bias, officer conduct, councillor involvement, predetermination, procedural fairness or third-party influence including neighbours concerning the application.
- Please search Council email accounts, councillor Council email accounts, planning case-management systems, document-management systems, Microsoft Teams or equivalent internal messaging systems, meeting notes, telephone attendance notes and internal file notes.

I am not requesting duplicate copies of documents already publicly available on the planning portal, unless those documents contain internal comments, forwarding comments, annotations, additional recipients, draft wording, or information not visible on the public file.
Where information is withheld or redacted, please identify the specific EIR exception relied upon and explain why it applies. Where the exception is subject to a public-interest test, please provide the public-interest reasoning. Where only part of a document is exempt, please disclose the remainder.

Response date: 6 August 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4056853

July

Reference: 4053402

Subject:

This is a request regarding the proposed commercial campsite at Holme Pierrepont. I understand exemption certificates held by the developer (Beltent Village) are private enforcement documents and cannot be released. I am writing to formally challenge this position and submit an information request. This development involves a massive commercial operation of glamping pods sitting in a known flood zone approximately 20/30 metres from The Hook Nature Reserve, via narrow roads, this is a matter of urgent public safety and environmental interest.

Under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), the public has a strict right to see documents held by the council that impact land use and environmental safety. Therefore, I formally request that the council provides:

Copies of the Three Exemption Certificates: The council confirmed the operator holds one certificate under the 1936 Public Health Act and two under the 1960 Caravan Sites Act. Because the council is using these specific documents to justify why they are not taking enforcement action, they must be disclosed under the EIR.
Clarification on National Self-Certification: Please confirm the exact identity of the national organisation supervising this site. Under Natural England criteria, a private commercial entity cannot legally issue an exemption certificate to themselves to bypass local authority planning laws. If Beltent Village holds the national certificate and is attempting to self-certify its own development, please confirm what evidence Rushcliffe Borough Council has requested to prove this arrangement is approved by Natural England.
Public Safety, Fire, and Flood Risk Monitoring: The council stated that flood risk is not considered under General Permitted Development Order Part 5. However, under the Environment Act 2021, the council maintains an overarching duty of care to protect the local environment. Please state what emergency and enforcement protocols the council will deploy if vulnerable temporary structures, along with paying clients, are exposed to fire or flood on this site, particularly considering the site's ingress and access limitations for emergency vehicles.
The Definition of Operational Development: Please confirm how the council intends to proactively monitor the site to ensure that the proposed pods, decking, and utility blocks remain strictly transportable and do not become permanent physical developments requiring standard planning permission.

As required by law, I look forward to your formal response to this EIR request within 20 working days.

Response date: 28 July 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4053402

Reference: 4037221

Subject:

I request all records you hold relating to the known injury or death of animals that are not rats or mice that have occurred or are suspected to have occurred as a result of rodent control operations. This means operations that were commissioned, administered, or delivered by the council, whether through in-house pest control staff or by external contractors engaged by the council.

My request includes casualties resulting from any lethal or live-capture rodent control method where non-target mortality occurred, including but not limited to:

Anticoagulant or acute rodenticide use (such as suspected secondary poisoning of raptors, hedgehogs, mustelids, or other wildlife)
Spring or kill traps (Fenn traps, tunnel traps, or similar)
Glue boards or adhesive traps
Any other method

I am requesting all records held, as far back as they are available in a readily accessible format. If full compliance would exceed the cost limit, please prioritise the most recent records available and advise me of the earliest year that falls within the limit. This request covers both confirmed casualties and cases where a causal link to rodent control was suspected but not formally established, for example where an animal was found dead in or near bait stations, traps or treatment areas.

For the avoidance of doubt, the council is requested to consider whether any relevant information is held by contractors or agents on its behalf and is therefore subject to disclosure under Regulation 3(2) of the EIR.

For each recorded incident or casualty, can you provide where held:

Species, or best identification available (e.g. "unidentified raptor")
Number of animals affected
Outcome (killed/injured/released alive)
Date or approximate date
Control method responsible
General location or site type (e.g. housing estate, council depot, public park)
Whether the operation was in-house or contracted out, and if the latter, the contractor's name

I also request where available:

Any summary or aggregate reports relating to non-target casualties in the council's rodent control programme
Any contractual provisions, standing instructions, or service specifications requiring pest control contractors to report non-target casualties to the council

Response date: 7 July 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4037221

May

Reference: 4015483

Subject:

I would like to request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act:

The total number of complaints relating to cigarette smoke, cigarette smoke smell, or smoking odour received between:
- 1January 2025 and 31 December 2025
- 1 January 2026 and 30 April 2026
Where recorded, a breakdown of the location type from which the complaint originated for the above periods, including categories such as:
- Residential
- Commercial
- Public spaces
The number of complaints during the above periods that resulted in:
- Formal action
- Enforcement action
- Warning notices
- Mediation
- Other recorded intervention outcomes

Response date: 22 May 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4015483.

Reference: 4005469

Subject:

I am contacting you in regards to a coordinated change seeking to modernise a busy portion of airspace in the centre of the UK called the Manchester Terminal Manoeuvring Area, which is made up of airspace changes from East Midlands, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester Airport.

Part of this change involves the upgrade of arrival and departure routes for each of these airports below 7,000ft, which will be achieved through an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) which follows the seven-stage CAP1616 process (more information on this can be found here.)

Part of the process involves undertaking aircraft noise assessments which must take into account any planned residential developments (as well as other sensitive property types listed below) which have been granted consent within potentially impacted districts, as well as any known housing provision allocated within local development frameworks, or contained in emerging draft Local Plans.

Accordingly, I am reaching out to you as your district has been identified as potentially impacted by one or more of the airport’s ACP changes.

We require information on planned developments (with consent granted since 1st May 2024) in your district for the following property types:

Residential (Large-scale developments of over 20 dwelling units only)
Schools
Hospitals
Places of worship (any denomination)
Care-homes (no minimum size)

Please ensure any developments listed include the application reference number, site address/location, description of development/proposals, decision date and appeal decision date (if applicable). Having regards to the PS2 codes used for your government returns, we believe these developments are likely to fall under the following codes: N01, N02, N05, N06, N07, N08, N11, N12, N17, N18, N20.

Response date: 6 May 2026

Response: Response to this request - 4005469.

April

Reference: 3985546

Subject:

I write in relation to the proposed Gamston Fields development and recent online correspondence regarding the underground pipeline noted within the site.

We wish to express support for the Council’s careful and evidence-based approach in considering all potential infrastructure constraints, including the pipeline referenced in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which states:

“There is an underground pipeline running on a broadly north-south axis through the site, predominantly to the west of Tollerton Lane which has a 3 m easement either side, all development must be located outside of the easement.”

We note that the SPD identifies the presence of the easement and correctly advises that development should avoid this corridor. It is, however, important to clarify that the SPD does not confirm ownership or confer rights to any third party over the land or the pipeline itself.

Based on publicly available information, the pipeline is reported as being owned by Mainline Pipeline Limited, with a dedicated contact line (0800 7560804) for asset protection enquiries. Accordingly, any claims by East Midlands Pipeline (EMP) to ownership or easement rights over the pipeline at present appear prospective and contingent upon completion of a formal acquisition.

EMP has stated that it is “in the process of finalising purchase” of the pipeline asset and intends to repurpose it for hydrogen transportation.

This raises a significant inconsistency: EMP’s claims of ownership, easement rights, and stakeholder status appear contingent upon a future acquisition, yet correspondence suggests they are being treated as a party with established rights.

In the interests of transparency and proper planning procedure, we respectfully request clarification regarding the following:

Whether EMP has provided documentary evidence confirming ownership of the pipeline asset;
Whether EMP currently holds any easement rights over the land in question, or any legal authority to assert control;
Whether EMP’s claims are based on anticipated future acquisition, and if so, whether any formal agreements with Mainline Pipeline Limited exist;
How EMP’s claimed status as a stakeholder in the planning process is justified in the absence of demonstrated legal rights.

We recognise that it is routine for third parties to request engagement with developers; however, where ownership and legal rights are not yet established, it is essential that any requests are treated as preliminary and not as confirmation of enforceable constraints on development.

While engagement by third parties is routine and appropriate, it is crucial that claims of rights and ownership are verified. Given that the land in question is understood to be partly publicly / privately owned, clarity regarding the legal position of EMP’s claims will ensure decisions are based on evidence, not assertion, and help maintain public confidence in the planning process.

We trust that the Council will continue to adopt an evidence-based approach and seek appropriate verification before treating EMP’s claims as a confirmed constraint.

Response date: 23 April 2026

Response: Response to this request - 3985546.

Reference: 3986868

Subject:

In order to establish whether any outstanding statutory notices which relate to the following matters subsist in relation to the following property other than those revealed in a response to any other enquiry

15 Heron Crescent, Cotgrave, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG12 3TQ

Response date: 22 April 2026

Response: Response to this request - 3986868.

Disclosure Log